OK, my comment was uncalled for. I just get a little tired of people posting 'facts' that they just make up. I didn't say anything that indicated any amazing insight, but at least I understand what I'm talking about enough to use the right numbers for my first grade math. I do happen to work with PCI devices for a living. I may do software (driver development) and not board layout or chip design - but I still need to understand enough to know whats happening on the bus. Maybe not at the physical level but I do understand the protocol.
Sure, but I was replying to a post that was talking about somthing called "PCI 1x." As that doesn't make too much sense I assumed he was talking about 33 MHz 32 bit PCI. I said nothing about AGP at any speed.
A serial graphics bus at 800Mbs is about as fast as twice PCI 1x.
No. 33 MHz * 32 bits = 1056 Mbps. Last I checked 1056 > 800. Trust me, the slowest PCI bus has a theoretical limit of just over 1 Gbps. I'd love to know where some of these numbers people post come from. Between this post underestimating PCI bandwith and the guy who said 93 MBps was a "paltry" sum for PCI, it's obvious that not many people (even the supposedly tech savy/. crowd) actully understand much about bus technology.
... that works out to around 93MB/sec. A paltry sum even for PCI.
I'm not sure I'd call that "paltry." A standard 33-MHz/32-bit PCI bus has a theoretical througput of 132 MB/sec (33 * 32 = 1056 Mbps = 132 MBps). But you can't really count on mantaining a continuous write burst in order to do smooth hi-res video playback to a PCI graphics card. And what about bus contention? If I want to stream a video feed across a LAN while playing it back full screen I'm not going to get anywhere near your 93 MB/sec with my NIC and graphics card sharing the bus. Sure you could go to 66-MHz/64-bit PCI (or in the near future 133-MHz with PCI-X), but AGP is much more common so why complain about it?
Nice description, but I can't resist fixing up a few details:)
Somewhere in the past B8ZS (Bit 8 Zero Set) came along and, with AMI, cleaned up everything.
That a new expansion of B8ZS by me, I've seen Bipolar, with 8-Zero Substitution from the telcos, Binary 8-Zero Substitution if you ask Cisco, and Binary 8-Zero Suppression from Bay. Your right about it only being of any benifit when used with AMI (Alternate Mark Inversion)
There are no such things as T2s and T3s, only DS2s and DS3s.
Not true at all. DS-whatever is a framing standard, and a TS-whatever is a copper pair carrying an electrical signal using the corresponding DS framing. A T1 carries a DS1. You can get a T3, and it carries a DS3. That being said, I've never heard of a T2 - AFAIK DS2s only exist as signals within switching and test equipment.
Re:I Feel it is My Duty to Clarify this Nonsense
on
Perl 5.6.0 Out
·
· Score: 1
Please, if you want to understand this case read as much as you can possibly find. I found the FAQ the site listed above to be most helpful, it attempt to present unbiased answers about the case by compiling quotes from Mr. Schwartz, the police reports, and the involved Intel employees.
This quick 'summary and editorial' is wrong. Randal Schwartz was not caught because he informed anyone about weak passwords, he was caught running crack on a machine that he was told not to have processes on. He was not cracking the password file of a machine he was responsible for, but another groups server without first discussing it with the system administators. Several times he installed back doors on Intel machines. Each time he was told to stop, he temporarily removed his program, then later either re-created his back door or moved it to another machine.
Thanks, I went and read the relevant sections of the LGPL (it's been a while since I've looked at it) and you are absolutly correct. I still find it strange, as previous discussions about the GPL argued that there is no difference in dynamic vs static linking.
"At the time of writing, Applixware is currently being chastised for a violation of the LGPL. The application suite is statically linked to the GTK libraries."
So who can explain to me why this is a problem? Isn't that the entire point of using the LGPL instead of the GPL? Has Applix actually done anything wrong, or is this another case of uninformed everything-must-be-open-source bigotry?
"... demonstrating the company's fastest microprocessor: a chip running at 1.5 gigahertz (GHz), or 1.5 billion clock cycles per second, at room temperature."
Several people have pointed out that this is not a NIC, it's a chip. But there seems to be some confusion still. This is not a single chip 10/100/1000 Ethernet solution, it's just a physical layer tranceiver. Any design using this Phy would still need a 10/100/1000 Ethernet MAC controller, and those cost quite a bit. $95 for a Phy is not going to bring about sub $200 NICs, not even close.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, my comment was uncalled for. I just get a little tired of people posting 'facts' that they just make up. I didn't say anything that indicated any amazing insight, but at least I understand what I'm talking about enough to use the right numbers for my first grade math. I do happen to work with PCI devices for a living. I may do software (driver development) and not board layout or chip design - but I still need to understand enough to know whats happening on the bus. Maybe not at the physical level but I do understand the protocol.
Sure, but I was replying to a post that was talking about somthing called "PCI 1x." As that doesn't make too much sense I assumed he was talking about 33 MHz 32 bit PCI. I said nothing about AGP at any speed.
No. 33 MHz * 32 bits = 1056 Mbps. Last I checked 1056 > 800. Trust me, the slowest PCI bus has a theoretical limit of just over 1 Gbps. I'd love to know where some of these numbers people post come from. Between this post underestimating PCI bandwith and the guy who said 93 MBps was a "paltry" sum for PCI, it's obvious that not many people (even the supposedly tech savy /. crowd) actully understand much about bus technology.
I'm not sure I'd call that "paltry." A standard 33-MHz/32-bit PCI bus has a theoretical througput of 132 MB/sec (33 * 32 = 1056 Mbps = 132 MBps). But you can't really count on mantaining a continuous write burst in order to do smooth hi-res video playback to a PCI graphics card. And what about bus contention? If I want to stream a video feed across a LAN while playing it back full screen I'm not going to get anywhere near your 93 MB/sec with my NIC and graphics card sharing the bus. Sure you could go to 66-MHz/64-bit PCI (or in the near future 133-MHz with PCI-X), but AGP is much more common so why complain about it?
Somewhere in the past B8ZS (Bit 8 Zero Set) came along and, with AMI, cleaned up everything.
That a new expansion of B8ZS by me, I've seen Bipolar, with 8-Zero Substitution from the telcos, Binary 8-Zero Substitution if you ask Cisco, and Binary 8-Zero Suppression from Bay. Your right about it only being of any benifit when used with AMI (Alternate Mark Inversion)
There are no such things as T2s and T3s, only DS2s and DS3s.
Not true at all. DS-whatever is a framing standard, and a TS-whatever is a copper pair carrying an electrical signal using the corresponding DS framing. A T1 carries a DS1. You can get a T3, and it carries a DS3. That being said, I've never heard of a T2 - AFAIK DS2s only exist as signals within switching and test equipment.
Please, if you want to understand this case read as much as you can possibly find. I found the FAQ the site listed above to be most helpful, it attempt to present unbiased answers about the case by compiling quotes from Mr. Schwartz, the police reports, and the involved Intel employees.
This quick 'summary and editorial' is wrong. Randal Schwartz was not caught because he informed anyone about weak passwords, he was caught running crack on a machine that he was told not to have processes on. He was not cracking the password file of a machine he was responsible for, but another groups server without first discussing it with the system administators. Several times he installed back doors on Intel machines. Each time he was told to stop, he temporarily removed his program, then later either re-created his back door or moved it to another machine.
Read all the info, make your own decision.
Thanks, I went and read the relevant sections of the LGPL (it's been a while since I've looked at it) and you are absolutly correct. I still find it strange, as previous discussions about the GPL argued that there is no difference in dynamic vs static linking.
"At the time of writing, Applixware is currently being chastised for a violation of the LGPL. The application suite is statically linked to the GTK libraries."
So who can explain to me why this is a problem? Isn't that the entire point of using the LGPL instead of the GPL? Has Applix actually done anything wrong, or is this another case of uninformed everything-must-be-open-source bigotry?
Take a look at the Intel Press Release
"... demonstrating the company's fastest microprocessor: a chip running at 1.5 gigahertz (GHz), or 1.5 billion clock cycles per second, at room temperature."
Several people have pointed out that this is not a NIC, it's a chip. But there seems to be some confusion still. This is not a single chip 10/100/1000 Ethernet solution, it's just a physical layer tranceiver. Any design using this Phy would still need a 10/100/1000 Ethernet MAC controller, and those cost quite a bit. $95 for a Phy is not going to bring about sub $200 NICs, not even close.